3. Centeno v. Centeno

FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. 140825. October 13, 2000.]

CIPRIANO CENTENO, LEONILA C. CALONZO, and RAMONAADRIANO, petitioners, vs. IGNACIA CENTENO, respondent.

Proceso M. Nacino for petitioners.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent led a complaint with the DARAB for "Maintenance of PeacefulPossession" praying for restraining order, ejectment and damages against thepetitioners. Respondent alleged that despite the decision of the DAR recognizing herownership over Lot Nos. 111 and 122, and armed by the Oce of the President,petitioners have been molesting respondent's possession over the landholdingsadjudicated to her.As defense, petitioners insisted that they are better entitled to the possession of thelots and that DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case. DARAB decided the case infavor of respondent, adverting to the earlier decision of the DAR which wasdeterminative of the rights of the parties under the principle of res judicata. TheCourt of Appeals affirmed DARAB's decision.Hence, this petition for review, petitioners claiming: that the case is one forrecovery of possession which falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts; thatthe complaint states no cause of action; that res judicata does not apply because thetwo actions have two distinct causes of action. DTSaIcIn denying the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled: that DARAB continues to havejurisdiction over the instant case which is an o-shoot of the previous agrarian casefor cancellation of CLTs; that petitioners are estopped from questioning thejurisdiction of the DARAB because they participated in all stages of the instant case;that the complaint states a cause of action; and that res judicata applies in theinstant case because the issue of possession is a settled matter in the earlier case forcancellation of CLTs.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORMLAW OF 1988; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND ADJUDICATION BOARD(DARAB); JURISDICTION; CASE AT BAR. The Court of Appeals correctly observedthat the present case for maintenance of peaceful possession with prayer for

restraining order/preliminary injunction is a mere o-shoot of the suit forcancellation of Certicates of Land Transfer (CLTs) led by herein respondentagainst herein petitioners before the DARAB. That previous case culminated in adecision upholding respondent's entitlement to an award of the subject landholdingsunder the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The case at bar is for themaintenance of her peaceful possession of the premises and to prevent thepetitioners from further harassing her and disturbing her possession and enjoymentthereof. Hence, the appellate court was correct in holding that the present case is anincident owing from the earlier decision of the administrative agency involving thesame parties and relating to the same lands. (T)he instant case is related to and is amere o-shoot of the said previous case for cancellation of CLTs which was decidedin favor of herein respondent, we believe and so hold that the DAR continues tohave jurisdiction over the same. As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals, underSection 50 of R.A. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), theDAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reformmatters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving theimplementation of the agrarian reform program. The rule is that the DARAB hasjurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any incident involving theimplementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL; PARTICIPATION BY PARTIES IN DARABPROCEEDINGS, A CASE OF. Petitioners are barred by estoppel from raising theissue of jurisdiction of the DARAB. A perusal of the records will show that petitionersparticipated in all stages of the instant case, setting up a counterclaim and askingfor armative relief in their answer. This Court has ruled that participation bycertain parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objectionthereto, bars them from any jurisdictional inrmity after an adverse decision isrendered against them.3. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CAUSE OF ACTION; ELEMENTSTHEREOF; CASE AT BAR. A cause of action is an act or omission of one party inviolation of the legal right or rights of another. The elements of a cause of actionare: (1) a right in favor of the plainti by whatever means and under whatever lawit arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant torespect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of suchdefendant in violation of the right of the plainti or constituting a breach of theobligations of the defendant to the plainti for which the latter may maintain anaction for recovery of damages. In the instant case, . . . the allegations regardingpetitioners' actions with regard to the subject land, if true, violate respondent'srights as adjudicated by the DARAB; hence, these constitute causes of action whichentitle the respondent to the relief sought.4. ID.; ID.; RES JUDICATA; ISSUE OF POSSESSION IS A SETTLED MATTER INCASE AT BAR. Finally, petitioners contend that the principle of res judicata doesnot apply to the instant case because the rst action led by respondent was forcancellation of the Certicates of Land Transfer issued to petitioners, while thesecond action, the instant case, is for maintenance of peaceful possession. . . . TheCourt of Appeals however ruled that the issue of possession is a settled matter. We

are inclined to agree with the findings of the appellate court on the issue.

R E S O L U T I O N

KAPUNAN, J p:The instant petition for review seeks the reversal of the Decision, dated September23, 1998; and, Resolution, dated November 17, 1999 of the Court of Appeals whicharmed the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board(DARAB) ordering herein petitioners to vacate the property awarded to respondentIgnacia Centeno. CSIDTcThe antecedent facts, as found by the appellate court, are quoted hereunder asfollows:

Respondent is the owner of two (2) parcels of riceland denominated as LotNo. 111, Psd-248725, with an area of 1,200 square meters, and Lot No.122, Psd-248725, containing an area of 2,862 square meters, situated atCofradia Sta Isabel, Malolos, Bulacan.The said parcels of land were the subject of an earlier case led byrespondent against petitioners before the Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR), for cancellation of certicates of land transfer (CLT). In said case, itwas established that petitioners, through fraud and misrepresentation,obtained CLTs in their names, i.e., CLT No. 10186 for Lot No. 122 and CLTNo. 10185 for one-half portion of Lot No. 111 for Cipriano Centeno, and CLTNo. 10184 for the other half of Lot No. 111 for Leonida Calonzo (sic).On November 15, 1986, the then Minister, now Secretary, of AgrarianReform issued an order directing the recall and cancellation of petitioners'CLTs, thus:WHEREFORE, premises considered, order is hereby issued:

1. Recalling and cancelling CLT No. 10186 covering Farmlot No.122 containing an area of 2,862 square meters and CLT No. 10185covering half portion of Home Lot No. 111 issued to RespondentCipriano Centeno, and CLT No. 10148 (sic) covering the remaining halfportion of Home Lot No. 111 issued to Respondent Leonila Calonzo, allunder Psd-248725, situated at RCC Malolos Estate, Malolos, Bulacan;and forfeiting in favor of the government whatever payments theyhave made on account thereof.2. Directing the generation and issuance of new Certicates ofLand Transfer in favor of herein protestant Ignacia Centeno, coveringthe landholdings at issue.

The aforesaid order was armed by the Oce of the President in its

decision dated July 8, 1987, which had become final and executory.The instant case has its roots in a complaint led by herein respondentIgnacia Centeno with the Department of Agrarian Reform and AdjudicationBoard (DARAB), Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, for "Maintenance of PeacefulPossession with Prayer for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction,Ejectment and Damages." Respondent alleged that, despite the decision ofthe DAR recognizing her ownership over Lot Nos. 111 and 122, as armedby the Oce of the President, herein petitioners Cipriano Centeno, LeonilaCalonzo and Ramona Adriano have interfered with and preventedrespondent from exercising acts of possession over the landholdings earlieradjudicated to her (Lot Nos. 111 and 122) and kept on harassing, molestingand disturbing her peaceful possession as well as the enjoyment of the fruitsthereof, to her great damage and prejudice. She prayed that petitioners berestrained from committing acts tending to deprive respondent of herpossession, and that they be ordered to vacate the premises.In their answer, petitioner insisted that they are better entitled to thepossession of the lots in dispute, having been allegedly in long possessionthereof, with their houses thereon. On the other hand, the award of saidlots to respondent is unauthorized, not only because she has no possessionthereof but also because she has other landholdings in the locality. Theyaverred that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of actionand for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DARAB over the case. aSTECAOn April 14, 1993, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision, afterhearing, favorably to respondent, adverting to the decision of the DAR,dated November 15,1986, which was held to be determinative of the rightsof the parties under the principle of res judicata. This decision was armedon appeal by the DARAB on September 10, 1997, with the directive "toimmediately reinstate petitioner-appellee (respondent herein) to the subjectlandholdings and for the defendants-appellants (petitioners herein) torespect (her) security of tenure thereon as mandated by law." 1

Not satised with the decision of the DARAB, herein petitioner led a petition forreview with the Court of Appeals. On September 23, 1998, the appellate courtrendered the assailed decision arming the decision of the DARAB. Hence, theinstant petition wherein petitioners raise the following issues:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD HASJURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE ESTOPPED FROMRAISING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION;

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OFACTION; and

4. WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA APPLIES IN THE INSTANT

CASE. 2Petitioners allege that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the complaint formaintenance of possession since the dispute is not agrarian in character. They averthat there is no allegation in the complaint of the existence of a tenancyrelationship nor the presence of an agrarian dispute that would place the case underthe jurisdiction of the DARAB. Rather, petitioners allege that the instant case isclearly one for recovery of possession which falls under the jurisdiction of theregular courts.Petitioners further asseverate that the appellate court gravely erred in declaringthat they are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the board because fromthe start of the proceedings, they had already raised said issue of jurisdiction.Petitioners likewise allege that the complaint states no cause of action. Theycontend that respondent cannot claim maintenance of peaceful possession whenshe does not in fact have actual possession of the subject property. They claim thatit is they who are in actual possession of said land; Furthermore, they claim thatrespondent did not even make a demand for them to vacate the land; nor did shepresent evidence to show that their acts of possession resulted in loss or damage toher. AScTaDFinally, petitioners contend that the principle of res judicata does not apply to theinstant case because the rst action led by respondent was for cancellation of theCerticates of Land Transfer issued to petitioners, while the second action, theinstant case, is for maintenance of peaceful possession. According to petitioners, thetwo actions refer to different subject matters and distinct causes of action.Petitioners' arguments are bereft of merit.The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the present case for maintenance ofpeaceful possession with prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction is amere off-shoot of the suit for cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) filedby herein respondent against herein petitioners before the DARAB. That previouscase culminated in a decision upholding respondent's entitlement to an award ofthe subject landholdings under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The caseat bar is for the maintenance of her peaceful possession of the premises and toprevent the petitioners from further harassing her and disturbing her possessionand enjoyment thereof. Hence, the appellate court was correct in holding that thepresent case is an incident owing from the earlier decision of the administrativeagency involving the same parties and relating to the same lands. 3We quote with approval the Court of Appeals' findings on the matter, thus:

In other words, the complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession is alogical follow-through of the intended operational terms of the DAR orderdated November 15 1986, as armed by the Oce of the President, whichdirected the recall and cancellation of the CLTs of petitioners which werefound to have been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and the

"generation and issuance" of new CLTs to respondent Ignacia Centeno,"covering the landholdings at issue." Such earlier determination must bedeemed to include the right of respondent, and her privies, to thepossession peaceful possession of Lot Nos. 111 and 122, Psd-248725.A judgment, needless to state, is not conned to what appears on the facethereof but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.(Perez v. Evite, 1 SCRA 949 [1961]; Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA595 [1992]). 4 (Italics supplied)

Having found therefore, that the instant case is related to and is a mere o-shoot ofthe said previous case for cancellation of CLTs which was decided in favor of hereinrespondent, we believe and so hold that the DAR continues to have jurisdiction overthe same. As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals, under Section 50 of R.A 6657(the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), the DAR is vested with primaryjurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have theexclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarianreform program. The rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide anyagrarian dispute or any incident involving the implementation of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. 5 (Italics supplied) DcTaEHSection 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DARAB provides:

Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The AgrarianReform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original andappellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 asamended by Republic Act No 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and otheragrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.Specically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to thefollowing:

xxx xxx xxxf) Cases involving the issuance of Certicate of Land Transfer(CLT), Certicate of Landownership Award (CLOA) and EmancipationPatent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof; (Italicssupplied.)

Furthermore, petitioners are barred by estoppel from raising the issue of jurisdictionof the DARAB. A perusal of the records will show that petitioners participated in allstages of the instant case, setting up a counterclaim and asking for armative reliefin their answer. This Court has ruled that participation by certain parties in theadministrative proceedings without raising any objection thereto, bars them fromany jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them. 6Anent petitioners' contention that the complaint states no cause of action, we ndthis to be, likewise, without merit. A cause of action is an act or omission of one

party in violation of the legal right or rights of another. 7 The elements of a cause ofaction are: (1) a right in favor of the plainti by whatever means and underwhatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the nameddefendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on thepart of such defendant in violation of the right of the plainti or constituting abreach of the obligations of the defendant to the plainti for which the latter maymaintain an action for recovery of damages. 8In the instant case, the complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession containsthe following allegations, to wit

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION8. Defendants are persistently interfering in and preventing plainti'spossession and cultivation of farmlot no. 122, and continue to commit actstending to eject, oust and remove the plainti therefrom, to her greatdamage and injury;9. Similarly, defendants are harassing, molesting and disturbing plainti'speaceful possession of Home Lot No. 111;

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION10. Without the knowledge and consent of herein plaintis, defendantsconstructed two (2) houses on two portions of Home Lot No. 111, onehouse belonging to defendant Cipriano Centeno, and the other to defendantLeonila Centeno Calonzo, but occupied by defendant Ramona Adriano;11. The construction of said houses is patently illegal and deprivesplainti of the possession and enjoyment thereof, to her great damage andinjury. 9

Clearly, the above allegations regarding petitioners' actions with regard to thesubject land, if true, violate respondent's rights as adjudicated by the DARAB; hence,these constitute causes of action which entitle the respondent to the relief sought.Finally, on the issue of the applicability of res judicata to the instant case.Petitioners would have us believe that they are the ones who are in actualpossession of the subject land. They argue that the order of DAR recalling andcancelling their CLTs "is void from the beginning." The Court of Appeals howeverruled that the issue of possession is a settled matter. We are inclined to agree withthe findings of the appellate court on the issue, thus:

It is futile for petitioners to argue, by their strained reasoning, that resjudicata is not applicable. Petitioners' position is that they are in possessionof the subject landholdings and have houses thereon. They thus argue thatthe order of the DAR recalling and cancelling their CLTs "is void from thebeginning." (Answer, 2) This is begging the issue. Precisely, one of the maindefenses of petitioners in the earlier case for cancellation of CLTs is theiralleged possession, but this was ruled against them by the DAR since forone, Cipriano Centeno, a nephew of respondent, was just a helper of

respondent tending to the landholdings. For another, it was also ruled thatrespondent has the preferential right over the land in dispute but that shewas deprived of her rights as CLT beneciary on account of petitioners'acquisition of CLTs through fraud and misrepresentation. Obviously, theissue of possession is a settled matter. 10 CEIHcT

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED forlack of merit. SO ORDERED.Davide Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. CA Decision, dated September 23, 1998, Rollo, pp. 28-30.2. Rollo, p. 15.3. Id., at 32.4. Ibid.5. Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 215 SCRA 86

(1992).6. Fortich v. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 (1998).7. Leberman Realty Corporation v. Typingco, 293 SCRA 316 (1998).8. Ibid.9. Complaint, Rollo, pp. 47-48.10. Rollo, p. 34.